Middle East

An edited version of this article appeared in the February edition of Socialism
Today, monthly magazine of the Socialist Party, British section of
the CWI)

The Palestinian masses perceive the election of the new Israeli Prime
Minister, Arik Sharon, as a vote for war. This perception is shared by
large sections of the working class and rural poor in the Arab and wider
Muslim world. This feeling will resonate amongst workers and youth in
the West and the populations of the neo-colonial countries of Africa,
Asia and Latin America.

Sharon is viewed by many as a war criminal and butcher, his hands
personally stained with the blood of thousands of oppressed
Palestinians. As leader of the infamous Unit 101, he was responsible for
the attack on the West Bank village of Qibya in 1953, which caused the
deaths of 69 Palestinian civilians (two-thirds of them women and
children). In August 1971, Sharon led IDF soldiers into Gaza city and
destroyed 2000 homes and displaced 16 000 Palestinians. Most notoriously
of all he was held responsible for the murder of at least 2000
Palestinians by Christian Phalange death squads in Sabra and Shatilla
refugee camps during the Lebanon war in 1982. Sharon’s highly
inflammatory visit under massive army protection to the Al-Aqsa mosque
(the third most holy site in the Muslim world) in Jerusalem sparked off
the second Intifada last September. Immediately following his election,
he returned and claimed that Jerusalem would remain the eternal
undivided capital of Judaism.

The high vote for Sharon amongst the Israeli Jewish working class was
mainly a vote against Barak. The social and economic attacks meted out
by the Barak government as well as the complete failure of his "peace"
negotiations and the outbreak of the Intifada account for this protest
vote.

It is the case that class-consciousness amongst Israeli Jewish workers
has retreated since the start of the Intifada. Amongst wide sections of
the Israeli working class there has been a high level of class
consciousness on social and economic issues. However, because of a lack
of a clear understanding of the intractable nature of the national
question under capitalism and the absence of mass workers organisations,
which can explain a socialist solution on this issue, even amongst these
sections of the population there is a tendency to empirically support
oppressive measures in near-war and war situations. There are deep fears
embedded in the psychology of sections of Israeli Jewish workers that
are encouraged by the most reactionary elements in society and come to
the fore when their security is threatened. This is because of the
experience of five wars since the founding of Israel in 1948. It is also
because it is normally Israeli Jewish workers who are killed as
conscript soldiers on the front lines and also in the buses and market
places when bombs are set off.

The failure of Barak to bring peace and social and economic security did
lead some sections of the Israeli Jewish working class to believe that a
so-called "strong man" in the form of Sharon could protect them.

Both Sharon and his vanquished rival Barak as different political
representatives of Israeli capitalism have the same strategic aims
fundamentally. These are the military and economic dominance of Israeli
capitalism in the region under US imperialist protection; extracting the
greatest possible concessions out of the Palestinian Authority which
only allow an impoverished, economically strangulated, cantonised
Palestinian proto-state; and stepping up the exploitation of the Israeli
Jewish working class - and Israeli Palestinians - to protect profit
levels and the power of Israeli capitalism.

However, the personal record of Sharon and the extremely reactionary
nature of some of the most right-wing groups who advocated a vote for
him, adds to the profoundly unstable and tension-filled situation in the
Middle East.

The explosion of the second Intifada in September 2000 signified the
decisive opening of this new phase in the Middle East politics. The
process that led to the Al-Aqsa Intifada had matured over a number of
years and flowed from of the failure of the Oslo peace accords. This was
not the result of tactical mistakes by its main negotiators but
demonstrates the inability of capitalism solving the national question
in Palestine and Israel. To do this requires fulfilling the aspirations
of the Palestinian masses for particularly their national - but also
their social and economic - liberation as well as answering the security
fears of the Israeli Jewish working class on the other.

Many Palestinians did have illusions when the Oslo Accords were first
signed. They hoped it represented the first step on a road that would
lead to the end of the detested IDF occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza, a halt to settlement building and the achievement of genuine
national liberation. It was not just a question that the Oslo Accord
failed but the methods used by the Israeli ruling class during the
"peace" negotiations that enraged so many Palestinians.

While the "peace" negotiations continued, the Israeli ruling class
promoted policies that led to the continuation of the daily humiliation
of Palestinians passing through IDF checkpoints and living under
occupation. They increased Palestinian land seizures and house
demolition. They built hundreds of kilometres of roads under IDF control
through Palestinian territory. The number of Palestinians employed as
day labourers from the West Bank and Gaza strip was slashed thus cutting
off a vital economic lifeline for the wider Palestinian population.
Millions of dollars of wages earned by Palestinians working abroad were
blocked from reaching their families by the Israeli government. As far
as the Palestinian masses were concerned everything that represented the
most hated conditions of decades of occupation continued, and worsened,
in the name of peace. In addition, the social and economic conditions
inside the Palestinian Authority also plummeted as a result of the
corruption of the clique around Arafat. Democratic rights were denied as
Arafat rapidly built a semi-police dictatorship. He used the methods of
divide and rule amongst his subordinates to maintain control. This has
laid the basis for the development of regional fiefdoms within the
Palestinian Authority which increases instability. It was if the worst
nightmares of the Palestinian masses became a living reality.

This led to a fundamental change in the consciousness of the Palestinian
working class and poor. They realised that only a return to struggle –
with the sacrifice of their lives if necessary – could change the
situation.

The uprising in the Palestinian Authority area was matched by an
explosion of anger amongst Israeli Palestinians that marked a
fundamental turning point in their consciousness, which will have a
serious and long-term effect of undermining the stability of Israeli
capitalism. This was reflected during the Prime Ministerial elections
when the voter turnout amongst Israeli Palestinians fell from 76% at the
last general election to 25%. Of those who voted 25% cast a blank ballot
in a conscious protest vote.

The brutality of the attacks by the IDF since last September has simply
increased the burning determination of the most radicalised Palestinian
workers and youth to continue their struggle until they achieve national
liberation.

The influence of Arafat and his clique has fallen to an all-time low.
Authority has passed into the leadership of the Tanzeem (the
semi-autonomous youth militia of Arafat’s Fatah organisation). One of
the Tanzeem leaders, Marwan Barghouthi, recently stated that there were
two divergent trends in the PA: one supporting the armed struggle; and
another the failed peace process. These leaders have used radical
rhetoric to maintain their hold over the masses and to position
themselves for a post-Arafat Palestinian Authority. The recent
announcement by the speaker of the Palestinian National Council of the
formation of a Commission of National Independence, backed by Yasser
Arafat and the leaders of the Tanzeem represents an attempt by the
besieged leader to win back some support. The platform of this
Commission has implied that the clauses of the PLO Covenant calling for
the destruction of Israel still stand and explaining that the "armed
struggle as the only way to liberate Palestine". There is growing
rivalry between different local leaders which in the future could be
utilised by Israeli undercover units to encourage internecine conflict.
This will be interspersed with movements of a mass character which unite
the Palestinian population in the face of outrages ordered by the
Israeli generals.

The mass character of the second Intifada has tended to subside with
armed attacks of groups of the Tanzeem against IDF units coming to the
fore. There has been a rise in individual bombings and killings of
Israeli civilians – a completely counter productive tactic which drives
the Israeli Jewish working class into the arms of the most reactionary
sections of the Israeli ruling class. This is a result of the lack of a
mass revolutionary socialist alternative in the Palestinian authority as
the most desperate and radicalised youth turn to extreme Islamic groups
like Hamas. It is possible in the future that such attacks will be
launched from within the Israeli Palestinian population against Israeli
Jewish targets. This will vastly increase the tension inside Israel and
could lead to calls for the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel.

Developments in the next few months are difficult to foresee exactly.
However because of the huge tension in the region the present low scale
intensity war between Israel and Palestine could spiral out of control
into a wider regional Israeli-Arab conflict. If this eventuality occurs
it will be because of the inability of US imperialism and the capitalist
powers in the region to sufficiently defuse the situation. As the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (which plays the role of a US
government think tank) said following the Israeli elections: "Regardless
of the outcome of yesterday’s vote, the prospect of regional conflict –
and even war – has risen to a level unseen since the Gulf War. The
United States government needs to take urgent measures to make that less
likely". World imperialist powers will exert huge pressures on the
Israeli and Arab capitalist powers not to go to war but this may not be
enough to force the hands of the regimes in the region which have
extremely limited room for manoeuvre.

The recent bombing of military installations in Baghdad by US and
British jets is not the way to achieve this. The shortsighted stupidity
of Bush’s demands that such a raid should take place in effect to
announce his entrance on to the stage of world politics will blow up in
the face of US imperialism if such tactics are continued.

Many Arab countries are in economic recession with widespread poverty
amongst the masses and rampant corruption in their ruling elites. These
countries have suffered years of IMF and World Bank imposed neo-liberal
policies, which have generally been enthusiastically supported by the
Arab regimes. Privatisation, asset stripping, increased corruption
through kickbacks, the devastation of the public sector and what little
welfare support that existed have been the result. Increasing sections
of the Arab masses have a generalised consciousness that sees US
imperialism as responsible and their own rulers compliant in the
implementation of these policies.

In addition their support for US imperialism’s intervention in the Gulf
war has soiled the image of most ruling Arab elites, especially since
the UN imposed sanctions have led to the deaths of over xx Iraqis. The
Arab regimes are seen by increasing sections of the Arab masses as
having stood by while US imperialism’s imposed Oslo Accord has torn the
national rights of the Palestinian masses to shreds.

The effect of this is demonstrated by a statement by the Egyptian
Al-Ahram research centre which commented: "Because of Egypt’s specific
problems, the Intifada might create much worse complications than in any
other Arab country. We are now in the midst of a recession, with a cash
shortage and huge domestic and foreign debt". However, these problems
are not just specific to Egypt – they can be found in most Arab
countries in the Middle East.

The Arab regimes could be faced with the prospect of being overthrown by
popular uprisings (or splits within the ruling elites resting on such
movements) sparked by continued aggression sanctioned by the Israeli
military chiefs of staff. Under these circumstances they may be dragged
into a wider regional Arab-Israeli conflict rather than losing the reins
of power. It is clear that US imperialism underestimates the level of
anger that has built up amongst the Arab masses.

Sharon is in the process of attempting to set up a national unity
government involving sections of Barak’s Labour Party, and other parties
– some from the right of the Israeli political spectrum. This is an
attempt by the ruling class to unite in the face of a threat to its
continued rule. Such a government will not last long because of the
pressures it would face from opposing directions.

The new government will in probably use the closure of all Palestinian
towns and villages in an attempt to stop the Intifada through economic
strangulation. This is very unlikely to work and will probably encourage
more conflict. If the national unity government did attempt to restart
negotiations with the Palestinian Authority then the most that would be
on offer would be the proposals made at Camp David last year. Arafat
could not sign such an agreement. If he did he would face removal or
assassination. Such an agreement would hold no authority amongst the
Palestinian masses.

One possibility that such a government could attempt, citing a national
emergency as a pretext, would be the option of unilateral separation.
This would involve the closure of some settlements and a declaration by
the Israeli state of what the borders between it and Palestine would be.
This would have catastrophic consequences. Palestinians inside and
outside Israel would probably respond with fierce resistance, including
armed attacks. In retaliation more reactionary elements in Israeli
Jewish society would call for and partially implement the ethnic
cleansing of Palestinians from Israel. This could be one of the routes
to a wider regional conflict.

The present situation in the Middle East is a graphic illustration of
the impossibility of capitalism solving the most basic problems of
everyday life. A small minority of Israeli Jewish workers and youth will
react against the decent into bloodshed. If a war did take place there
would be a backlash amongst wider sections of Israeli Jews. Sections of
Palestinian youth will also through their experience search for
alternative ideas (perhaps inspired by mass movements elsewhere in the
world) that go beyond the tactics of individual armed attacks and the
dead-end that the ideas of Hamas represent. It is amongst these layers
that Marxists must orientate to, explaining that only the overthrow of
capitalism in the region and the creation of a socialist confederation
of the Middle East which guarantees the national aspirations of all
sections of the population can provide an alternative unending cycle of
war and bloodshed that capitalism and imperialism brings.